Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: Question about Award Criteria
The Lifetime Award Criteria (latest edition) states that:
"2 -The first person to accurately report a change to an existing fixed site i.e. change of type, correction of location, move etc"
Can I just clarify therefore, that whilst this clearly does not apply to minor itsy bitsy location issues (it's 5 foot further up the road than you have it, blah blah blah etc), this WOULD however, cover the case of Fixed Gatso's in the database, where the location is actually listed on completely the WRONG side of the carraigeway, and thus the icon placement on the WRONG side of the road, even on a TomTom screen when approaching it, makes you think it's for catching traffic in the OTHER direction, and moreover, if I submit the correct 'direction of catch', if the existing wrongly placed camera has no current existing data for this recorded, or it is totally wrong?.
This is obviously far more of a 'proper' correction, location change, and direction catch reporting.
So would reporting such a change (and of course needing to be the first to highlight this), amount to the Award Criteria as listed guys?
Rest assured, as the key aim is always the most exact database possible, I have ALREADY reported this - it's NOT dependant on there being anything in it for me. But I am hopeful still that such a significant correction to a Fixed Gatso, meets the Lifetime Award criteria, so can you guys shed light?
Joined: Aug 05, 2006 Posts: 407 Location: Alconbury - UK
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject:
Can I just put my 2p's worth in here?
I think that moving a camera 5 foot further up the road is the correct thing to do and should be rewarded.
I know that we subscribe to the website which has free access to the camera database, but if the database quality is haphazard, there may come a time when someone does take it seriously and mounts a genuine alternative to PGPSW (which I hope will not happen).
This site is only going to be as good as we make it and if it is to succeed, it needs to be the best available anywhere.
If we are going to accept sloppy reporting and even worse, sloppy verifiying, then we are happy to settle for second best.
In the same vein, POI's should be treated equally importantly.
Rant over _________________ TT Go 720 (T)
Firmware 9.430. Map: Western Europe V 875.3613
TT iPhone app
V 1.23 Map: Western and Central Europe 2 GB V 965.7286
TT iOS Go Mobile
V 1.1 Map: Western Europe 965.7248
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject:
I think you'll find that 5 feet is far too small a change to even register on your GPS.
Pick a camera and drive past it in one direction, turn around and and drive past it in the opposite direction.
Due to the inaccuracies of your GPS, the indicated position of that same camera may differ by about 20 yards (60 feet) simply by passing it in different directions.
Furthermore, if you're expecting people to accurately report camera positions within 5 feet, then EVERY camera will be classified as 'inaccurate' because it simply is not possible to do so - especially if the vehicle is moving.
Given that the average person's pace is about 3 feet, you're talking about cameras being reported accurately to within one step either way from a moving vehicle.
Additionally, such a location would have to be VERIFIED to within 5 feet - so I imagine fewer lifetime subscriptions would be awarded for "accurate" submissions, given that a verifiers GPS may show the camera in a slightly different location.
Furthermore, with mobile locations, it's possible that different vehicles will be more than 5 feet apart each time they occupy a given location.
Finally, given the accuracy of many submissions, if an accuracy of less than 5 feet is required, the simple verifiers' comments are likely to be "NOT A CHANCE" of a submission being accepted _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject:
Tom59 wrote:
I think that moving a camera 5 foot further up the road is the correct thing to do and should be rewarded.
This site is only going to be as good as we make it and if it is to succeed, it needs to be the best available anywhere.
If we are going to accept sloppy reporting and even worse, sloppy verifiying, then we are happy to settle for second best.
I have to applaud and agree with the second paragraph above. But the first is not practical. Your satnav device is quite incapable of that degree of accuracy. To test it, create a favourite anywhere you like and drive to it at whatever sped limit applies there and observe carefully whether it shows up exactly in the right place on your screen. Then drive to it from the opposite direction in the same manner and see what result you get again. Odds on you'll get differences. I know this from my experience as a Verifier - many times I'll make a note to move a camera up or down the road as I drive past it, but then on the return journey I find that it's perfectly placed. Furthermore, my device is different from some others - one person's device finds it spot on, another finds it 5 feet out.
Five feet is less than two yards. There are many opinions on what distance to set your warnings for cameras, but if you've got it set to 2 yards, God help you! I'm not being facetious with that. You MUST set sensible distances which are suitable for your driving style. Most people will disagree with my distances - I have every single one set to 375 yards. This is because I am confident in my driving style never to exceed the speed limit and the warning is merely a reminder to have a quick glance of reassurance at my speed. Many people go with the distances which give a 20 second warning - by the time the warning ends, the difference of 5 feet either way is completely irrelevant.
Curses, I see GPS_Fan is a faster typist!! _________________ Dennis
I think you'll find that 5 feet is far too small a change to even register on your GPS.
Pick a camera and drive past it in one direction, turn around and and drive past it in the opposite direction.
Due to the inaccuracies of your GPS, the indicated position of that same camera may differ by about 20 yards (60 feet) simply by passing it in different directions.
Furthermore, if you're expecting people to accurately report camera positions within 5 feet, then EVERY camera will be classified as 'inaccurate' because it simply is not possible to do so - especially if the vehicle is moving.
Given that the average person's pace is about 3 feet, you're talking about cameras being reported accurately to within one step either way from a moving vehicle.
Additionally, such a location would have to be VERIFIED to within 5 feet - so I imagine fewer lifetime subscriptions would be awarded for "accurate" submissions, given that a verifiers GPS may show the camera in a slightly different location.
Furthermore, with mobile locations, it's possible that different vehicles will be more than 5 feet apart each time they occupy a given location.
Finally, given the accuracy of many submissions, if an accuracy of less than 5 feet is required, the simple verifiers' comments are likely to be "NOT A CHANCE" of a submission being accepted
Andy,
I concur, hence why I used a "5 foot up t' road" change as the example of what is NOT a valid correction.
So I think your giving that info for the poster who said five foot corrections should be done.
I too think that's pushing it.
But correction to the entire side of carriageway - that's something we SHOULD all be reporting, yes?
I know it's not your specialist department, but do you think it's right that where cameras have been located on the wrong side of the carriageway, with possible wrong direction data as well, we should be correcting these sort yes?
Joined: Aug 05, 2006 Posts: 407 Location: Alconbury - UK
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:
The point that I was trying to make is that we should all aim for as accurate details as possible. 5 feet, 15 feet, 25 feet, when is it deemed to be wrong?
All that I am saying is that the more accurate the submission, the more accurate the database. _________________ TT Go 720 (T)
Firmware 9.430. Map: Western Europe V 875.3613
TT iPhone app
V 1.23 Map: Western and Central Europe 2 GB V 965.7286
TT iOS Go Mobile
V 1.1 Map: Western Europe 965.7248
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject:
shadamehr wrote:
I know it's not your specialist department
What is my specialist department, pray tell?
There was more than one mention of 5 feet, hence my reply was generalised and not trying to pick an argument with anybody in particular.
Having become a verifier by default (as the result of becoming a Mod), I have witnessed some pretty dire submissions and comments that leave you more baffled than if there had been none.
I would therefore say that I've gained more experience in the general running of this site and thus have a more 'specialised' opinion than most, wouldn't you say? _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject:
shadamehr wrote:
I know it's not your specialist department, but do you think it's right that where cameras have been located on the wrong side of the carriageway, with possible wrong direction data as well, we should be correcting these sort yes?
Since this is clearly not my specialist department, I don't think I'm in a position to answer your question so I shall leave it to the appropriate specialist - whoever he or she may be _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:28 am Post subject:
If the camera is shown on the wrong carriageway of a dual carriageway ON THE MAIN SUBMISSION MAP then it obviously needs correcting.
However, the accuracy of all the different satnav systems and maps simply does not allow for perfect accuracy.
Firstly there is DennisN's example of how the onscreen "countdown" to a camera location will often be different when you appproach from a different direction.
Secondly, I often find that if I mark a location on the Submission map and then transfer the Lat/Long coordinates to my TomTom it will look slightly different.
Thirdly, if I look at the published position of an existing camera on the submission map and then look at the same camera at maximum zoom level on my TomTom's map it will again be slightly different.
Yes it's an irritation but there is nothing that can be done about it.
That is why the preffered method is for camera positions always to be submitted by their position ON THE SUBMISSION MAP, not from whatever satnav device you use.
If I sent in loads of corrections to get a position just to the left or right of the road as I see it while driving, who's to say it won't be completely off road on someone else's Navman or Garmin?
I don't, so I leave it to the experts to do the best they can, and usually the rule of thumb is now to put the camera position slap bang in the middle of the relevant carriageway, which usually ends up SOMEWHERE close on my map.
Here is one Mobile unit in three screenshots. The same discrepancies will exist for all types of cameras.
Google Map
Google Satelite
Garmin Colorado
There have been many discussions on the standardisation of the database and Andy_P2002 has correctly summed it up as:-
Quote:
That is why the preferred method is for camera positions always to be submitted by their position ON THE SUBMISSION MAP, not from whatever satnav device you use.
Previously we generally submitted positions from our unit software not from the Google map.
However, the Screenshots show that the map and the Satellite view show the camera position in a garden and the Garmin 50 feet off the road!
To correct this type of change of location should not warrant ‘lifetime membership’ [in my opinion] but it is vital to the database, whatever the camera type. The Camera position may not have changed but it was reported before 'standardisation' reflecting either Garmin or TomTom software differences.
MaFt and the 'team' have been modifying this type of position [made before standardisation on the Google map] for months and adding directional detail, and this process is still 'ongoing'. A mamouth task!
If I was to submit this camera I would use the Satellite view first and check it on the Google map then submit it as:-
51.65531753758603 -3.8591066747903824
However, with Google Map 'standardisation', Garmin [CityNavigator Europe v2008] would still show it 20ft off the road [5853a in screenshot]
Please don't use this opportunity to make thinly veiled digs at others. My post was supposed to be the end of it, not a pause for thought.... Any more and I'll delete the entire thread.
PaulB2005
To that end, and a genuine question that always made me wonder when clicking the Submission Map on existing cameras - if a user does not include any Heading Data when adding a new camera, does this default to a Heading of Zero, or show none at all - I don't really fathom how it works (clearly that question is open to any that can answer, not you specifically Andy)
before i comment, can you let me know the camera number in question?
MaFt
Oops - just realised I said I'd PM you the info, to save any issue in here, but then remembered your Signature strip about not using PM.
Let me know which you'd prefer, and I'll supply the relevant info mate - but rest assured, long before this thread was posted, I had already submitted the info MaFt - so it's in as a normal Update Submission anyhow.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
